SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
BAHARUL ISLAM & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 502-503 OF 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 32592-32593 of 2015, TC (C) NO. 25 OF 2018, TC (C) NO. 24 OF 2018
Decided on : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv. Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shreya, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pathak, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Deep Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Arnav Singh Deo, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Paranjay Tripathi, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. Mr. Sharathj Nambiar, ADv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj S. Udupa, ADv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., ADv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Mr. V.K. Kanna, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 10A and 15 - Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 - Legislative competence - Assam Act struck down for being unconstitutional as it conflicted with Central Act, which governs medical education standards. (Paras 25-26)

(B) Legislation - Principal of occupied field - State cannot legislate in areas where Central Act is applicable, and any State law that conflicts with it is void. (Paras 22-24)

(C) Public health - Improvement as a duty of the state - Policies must ensure equitable access to qualified healthcare providers regardless of geographical disparities. (Paras 25)

Facts of the case:
Appellants contested the Gauhati High Court's decision which struck down the Assam Act declaring it unconstitutional for conflicting with the Indian Medical Council Act. The Assam Act aimed to regulate medical qualifications for practitioners in rural health care, establishing a diploma system without permission from the Central Government.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the High Court's decision, determining that the Assam Act was void for lacking legislative competence as it overlapped with the Central legislation in establishing medical standards.

Issues: The core questions pertained to the validity of the Assam Act in relation to the Indian Medical Council Act and whether the Assam Act adequately addressed the needs of rural healthcare.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Assam Act's provisions on qualifications and practice conflicted with the Indian Medical Council Act’s standards, nullifying its legal standing.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

INDEX

Sl. No.

Particulars

1.

Brief facts of the case

2.

Bird’s Eye View of the controversy

3.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

4.

Arguments on behalf of R-1

5.

Arguments on behalf of R-7

6.

Submissions on behalf of the State of Assam

7.

Points for consideration

8.

Constitutional Scheme

9.

Contentions on behalf of the UOI

10.

Interplay between Entry 66 of List 1 and Entry 25 of List III

11.

Relevant provisions of Indian MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT , 1956

12.

Relevant provisions of Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act , 2004

13.

A comparative table and analysis of the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Assam Act

14.

Triology of cases

15.

Conclusions:

Leave granted.

2. In these appeals, the appellants have assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5789/2005, whereby the High Court by allowing the Writ Petition struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act , 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Assam Act’ or the ‘State Act’ for the sake of brevity) which was enacted by the Assam State Legislature.

Brief facts of the case:

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals and transferred cases, in a nutshell are that on 18.09.2004, the Assam Legislature enacted the Assam Act. The said Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of a regulatory authority in the State of Assam to register the Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care (“DMRHC”), to regulate their practice in medicine in rural areas and to regulate the opening of medical institutions to impart education and training for the course of Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care.

3.1. On 23.06.2005, the Director, Medical Education, State of Assam, published an advertisement in the Assam Tribune inviting applications from eligible candidates seeking admissions in the three-year course of Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Medical Institute, Jorhat, for the session starting in the year 2005.

3.2. The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 5789 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Gauhati High Court, assailing the validity of the Assam Act and the aforesaid advertisement. During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, the appellants herein were admitted in the First year of the three-year Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Medical Institute, Jorhat, (‘Jorhat Medical Institute’ for the sake of convenience) for the sessions 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively, pursuant to the selection process.

3.3. Having regard to the fact that the Jorhat Medical Institute was created as envisaged under the State Act, and about four-hundred students had been admitted to the diploma course and awarded certificates on having passed the Course, State of Assam made a plea for impleadment of the Regulatory Authority, the Jorhat Medical Institute and the persons who had obtained diploma certificates and had been engaged as Rural Health Practitioners on the basis of such qualification.

3.4. By the impugned order dated 19.09.2014, the High Court rejected the State’s plea for impleadment of the Regulatory Authority, the Jorhat Medical Institute and the persons who had obtained diploma certificates from the said Institute during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court.

3.5. The pertinent findings of the High Court, in the impugned order dated 19.09.2014 may be summarized as under:

    i) That the State ha


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top